Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Politics
Original poster

When will the BBC be held accountable for their lack of patriotism

559 replies

longfingernails · 01/12/2010 22:59

Why does this far-left propoganda group continually try to do Britain down?

Why can't they have more presenters who think like the majority of Brits - people who believe that Britain is truly great - indeed, the best country in the world.

People who believe in our institutions, who love the monarchy, who revere the military, who speak in hushed awe about the majesty of our traditions. Presenters who are over-awed by the silent beauty of our countryside, and the glory of our heritage and history. Why do they always use their sneering, supercilious, Guardianista attitude - this constant insinuation that Britain should always be taking the blame and apologising. Coincidentally, it seems to stem from the same sort of sneering middle-classery that is prevalent on MN...

The most recent, shameful episode is the Beeb trying their best to spoil the England 2018 bid. Now I have no time at all for football - I can't stand it - but I fully recognise how important it is for our economy, and also for our national psyche.

The sooner the BBC withers and dies the better. Sadly, it has gotten away with a miniscule 16% cut in the TV tax over 6 years. They will continue their ramblings for the foreseeable future.

OP posts:
claig · 03/12/2010 21:27

I don't think it is about "social construct", I think it is about reality. The early cavemen hunters could distinguish between a wild boar and a bunny rabbit. I'm not sure they thought in terms of social construct, they just used their common sense.

WilfShelf · 03/12/2010 21:28

claig, you can continue saying 'it's not just about this, or that' till the cows come home, but you're not actually telling us what you think it IS about.

Your argument is making some basic errors of reasoning: you're eliding a number of concepts, you're not providing evidence to support your claims, and you are assuming that one small part of your claim entails another, when it doesn't.

It is not accurate or logical on so many levels to say 'because we can identify people as Chinese or Welsh, therefore Chinese-ness or Welsh-ness must be genetic'. Nor is it logical or accurate for you to claim that it simply must be true, because it 'just is', which is effectively what you're doing.

WilfShelf · 03/12/2010 21:29

Ah, common sense. Which is what, exactly?

TheCoalitionNeedsYou · 03/12/2010 21:31

And the skin colour may be the least significant diffence and isn't a predictor of other characteritics. Much as the colour of a car doesn't predict it's performance.

claig · 03/12/2010 21:32

I am having trouble understanding what you mean. Can you explain why the difference between a Chinese person and a Caucasian person is not genetic? Obviously we are ignoring all of the things that they have in common, we are only discussing differences.

claig · 03/12/2010 21:35

'And the skin colour may be the least significant diffence and isn't a predictor of other characteritics. Much as the colour of a car doesn't predict it's performance.'

I agree. There are other differences than skin colour. I am not saying that skin colour predicts anything, I am just saying that it is a genetic difference.

TheCoalitionNeedsYou · 03/12/2010 21:41

Claig - Ok - we need to define our terms. What do you mean by 'Race'.

WilfShelf · 03/12/2010 21:42

The bigger differences between a Chinese person and a Caucasian person are almost entirely down to different cultural experiences. And as you say there are far more similarities.

Different languages, different upbringing, different histories, different political contexts, different work patterns, different interpersonal social rules, different customs, different social structures. And many more things that are 'invented' but nevertheless which last over time. And although these things change, and can be tweaked over time, they form relatively stable patterns. They are what form cultures.

'National' cultures are part of this complex social structure, and the more informal parts of it get tied in to more formal 'state' parts: such as a flag, a map, a taxation system, an 'official' language (or in China's case, a few...), a series of traditions (mostly, as historians have pointed out, invented in the 19th Century in Europe's case).

Genetics might be easier and quicker to 'explain' these things, and certainly the cultural explanation is uncomfortable because it is a vast array of different causal factors. But however uncomfortable and complex, it is the truth. Genetics play a VERY very small part in the picture of what makes groups of people different...

claig · 03/12/2010 21:43

what do you mean by it?

claig · 03/12/2010 21:46

but WilfShelf, I think we are talking about different things. You are talking about culture and I am talking about genetics. A culture is not a race.

TheCoalitionNeedsYou · 03/12/2010 21:49

By 'Race' I mean the idea that the fact that there are large, distinct, groups of people who are more similar to each other than to the other groups in terms of skin colour or other physical characteristics means that the variation of other characteristics such as intelligence and attitudes within those groups is less that that between the groups and that this can be attributed to the same causes as the characteristics you are using for the classification.

So if you took someone from a Chinese racial background and they were raised in an entirely European enviroment they would still display 'Chinese' characteristics other than in appearance.

WilfShelf · 03/12/2010 21:50

Yes, clearly, but that's because THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS RACE (mostly). And, even if there is some teeny tiny influence of genetics on things like skin colour, hair colour, eye colour and physical characteristics, that DOES NOT map onto geographical location, or personality/character, or cultural values, or beliefs. And DEFINITELY does not map onto 'country' (ie the object of patriotism) which was where you started in your argument.

TheCoalitionNeedsYou · 03/12/2010 21:52

If your definition of Race is just 'skin colour' then (ignoring the issue of where one draws the border), then all you are saying is 'black people are black', which is genetic but not terribly interesting.

claig · 03/12/2010 21:54

'By 'Race' I mean the idea that the fact that there are large, distinct, groups of people who are more similar to each other than to the other groups in terms of skin colour or other physical characteristics '

I agree with the above but not about the intelligence and attitude that you mentioned.

TheCoalitionNeedsYou · 03/12/2010 21:57

Well, good because that bit is clearly and trivially true. There ARE large, distinct, groups of people who are more similar to each other than to the other groups in terms of skin colour or other physical characteristics. But all that's saying is 'black people are black'. This is not a terribly novel interesting or helpful fact other than in the manufacture of makeup.

claig · 03/12/2010 21:57

'If your definition of Race is just 'skin colour' then (ignoring the issue of where one draws the border), then all you are saying is 'black people are black', which is genetic but not terribly interesting.'

yes all I have ever been saying is that there are genetic differences between races and they are real, they are not a social construct.

claig · 03/12/2010 21:58

ok it may not be interesting but I thought that you and WilfShelf didn't agree with it and were saying that race is not real and is just a social construct

TheCoalitionNeedsYou · 03/12/2010 21:59

So what you are saying is 'some people look different to some other people'

Yes.

And?

WilfShelf · 03/12/2010 22:00

I know it's a TV station and they're all leftie bolshevik nutters etc etc Grin but this is actually quite a good overview of the problem... And the Channel 4 resources on the 'science of race' series they did are pretty interesting overall.

TheCoalitionNeedsYou · 03/12/2010 22:01

Well that's because what you have drescribed is not 'Race' is it is used by people discussing differences between races, identity etc.

What you are describing is called 'skin colour'.

WilfShelf · 03/12/2010 22:02

I agree with TCNY: There is 'something' called genetic patterns that map onto broad, BIG populations. But this is an accident of geographical history. And you can derive little else of significance from it. Some people might call this 'race' but as TCNY says it really isn't a useful shorthand.

The Malik article is interesting: no one doubts that some genetic information is useful (some disease prevention issues for example) but the other bits are being missed: that populations are 85% similar and that there is far more genetic variation WITHIN so called 'races' than BETWEEN them.

claig · 03/12/2010 22:03

But I also believe that some of our other characteristics are due to our genes. Some of us are shy, some extrovert, some lethargic and some energetic. I think it is our genes that are the main determinants of that. All of the races have people of all these types too.

My contention is that what marks out exceptional sporting superstars like Usain Bolt are their unique genes and it is this that differentiates his performance from all of his thousands of competitors. Gideon Osborne could practice forever, but he will never be able to beat Usain Bolt in a race, because his genes do not lend themselves to being able to beat Usain Bolt.

claig · 03/12/2010 22:05

'What you are describing is called 'skin colour'.

I already said it was more than skin colour several times. What about eye colour and hair colour?

TheCoalitionNeedsYou · 03/12/2010 22:06

Claig - Again - yes that is true and entirely uncontroversisal.

If you can take the sentance about 'Race' out of a post and it still means EXACTLY the same thing then it's not really a post about 'Race'.